♦ The court addressed three motions: (1) defendants’ renewed request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) for more time to oppose the plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion, (2) the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on a fraudulent transfer claim, and (3) the plaintiff’s motion for a charging order to aid collection of an earlier money judgment. The court denied the Rule 56(d) motion because the defendants’ affidavit did not meet Rule 56(d)’s specific requirements (the mere incarceration/unavailability of defendant Peretz was not enough), and the record showed defendants had already effectively admitted key facts by failing to timely respond to requests for admission and by not properly contesting the plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts. On the merits, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Count III, finding that Peretz’s transfers of multiple real properties to various LLC “transferees” constituted fraudulent transfers under O.C.G.A. §§ 18‑2‑74 and 18‑2‑75, and ordered relief including avoidance/cancellation of the deeds, attachment and injunctive relief, and directed the plaintiff to submit a proposed final judgment consistent with the order. Finally, the court deferred ruling on the charging-order motion because the plaintiff had not provided current evidence of Peretz’s present ownership interests in the targeted entities; it allowed 60 days of discovery under Rule 69(a)(2) and permitted later supplementation and renewed consideration. ♦